Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Hypocrisy of pro-lifers being anti-LGBTQIA

Opinion

Hypocrisy of pro-lifers being anti-LGBTQIA
Getty Images

Steve Corbin is Professor Emeritus of Marketing at the University of Northern Iowa.

The prefix “pro-“ means to support a cause. The noun “life” is defined as an organism composed of cells that can grow, learn and respond to stimuli preceding death. It stands to reason that a pro-lifer is a radical proponent that from cell development until death -- everyone -- is supported. Everyone!


Most right-wing evangelicals and conservative Catholics proudly boast of being pro-life. MAGA Republican die-hards fondly recall a January 2020 March for Life rally where Donald Trump thanked participants for “making America the pro-family, pro-life nation.”

Simply stated, you cannot be pro-life unless you also support the 7.2 percent of babies who grow up to be LGBTQIA and – by the way – are living under the same canopy of heaven and with God’s divine grace.

LGBTQIA is an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or questioning, intersex, asexual/aromantic/agender. One out of every 13 people you meet could be LGBTQIA (Gallup, Feb. 2023). Medical research is replete with evidence that 1.7 percent of human births are intersex (Journal of Sex Research), whereby the genitalia cannot be classified as female (XX chromosomes) or male (XY chromosomes). The Novo Nordisk Foundation reveals intersex children and their parents are not aware of the chromosome gene mutation until the child reaches puberty.

The LGBTQIA population breaks down – per Gallup research -- as follows:

1) 20.8 percent of Gen Z (age 20-26), 2) 10.5 percent of Millennials (age 27-42), 3) 4.2 percent of Gen Z (age 43-58), 4) 2.6 percent of Baby Boomers (age 59-77) and 5) 0.8 percent of Traditionalists (78 and older).

Seventy-nine percent of Americans want to protect LGBTQIA rights. Deniers of the LGBTQIA population probably don’t know – or if they do know shame on them -- repercussions of their “anti-“ stance. According to a 2021 survey by the Trevor Project, over 50 percent of transgender and non-binary kids have considered suicide and 93 percent say they worry about state laws denying transgender people access to gender-affirming medical care.

Research conducted by Child Trends revealed a statistically significant increase in mental health crisis text lines when anti-LGBTQIA legislation bills are introduced. LGBTQIA teens are five times more likely to make an attempt on their life than their straight peers. Negative actions and attitudes against LGBTQIA teenagers can have serious, life-altering consequences. This data should be a wakeup call for pro-lifers, especially if they value life and disdain suicide and mental health issues.

In October of 2018, Mr. Trump sought to reclassify people into an “unchangeable” category of male or female, which completely denies the existence of transgender and intersex people; a clear violation of human rights. I presume pro-lifers value human rights.

Organizations behind the anti-LGBTQIA legislation that’s been introduced in over 42 states include the conservative legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation and the Christian nationalist (who despise all other religions and are anti-Semitic) lobby group Family Policy Alliance.

When 79 percent of Americans who support LGBTQIA rights witness evangelical parishioners and houses of worship tout anti-LGBTQIA beliefs, might this be one reason behind the decline of religious affiliation and church attendance?

Mayors, city council and school board members plus county, state and federal elected officials who took an oath of office to represent all citizens and are anti-LGBTQIA have betrayed the public’s trust and society’s soul. We the People – as per the Constitution -- should do our utmost to rid prejudice-laden politicians from serving unless they can represent 100 percent of their respective citizenry.

Pro-life citizens who are anti-LGBTQIA should seriously reflect on what Nelson Mandella – who devoted his life to the service of humanity -- once said, “there can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.”


Read More

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding
person in red shirt wearing silver bracelet holding red and black metal tool
Photo by Wassim Chouak on Unsplash

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looking at social media app icons on a phone

Gen Z is quietly leaving social media as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and addictive platform design fuel anxiety, isolation, and mental health struggles.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Gen Z Begs Legislators: Make Social Media Social Again

Lately, it seems like each time I reach out to an old acquaintance through social media, I’m met with a page that reads, “This account doesn’t exist anymore.”

Many Gen-Z’ers are quietly quitting the platforms we grew up on.

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less